io@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square4fedilinkarrow-up1287arrow-down11file-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
arrow-up1286arrow-down1imageChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneio@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square4fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
minus-squarewiegell@feddit.dklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 hours agoWhat are the details about this? Not really apparent from the links
minus-squareunexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 hours agoFrom a post here two days ago: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/this-is-a-political-deception-new-chat-control-convinces-lawmakers-but-not-privacy-experts-yet I guess this is an addendum to this proposal to clarify that these rules dont classify as making scanning mandatory.
minus-squarewiegell@feddit.dklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-215 minutes agoYea i read that, but isn’t this post about that not being an issue anymore?? // Edit: I mean in particular Patrick Breyer was been critical about the revised proposal, so him posting this now suggests that something new has happened?
What are the details about this? Not really apparent from the links
From a post here two days ago: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/this-is-a-political-deception-new-chat-control-convinces-lawmakers-but-not-privacy-experts-yet
I guess this is an addendum to this proposal to clarify that these rules dont classify as making scanning mandatory.
Yea i read that, but isn’t this post about that not being an issue anymore?? // Edit: I mean in particular Patrick Breyer was been critical about the revised proposal, so him posting this now suggests that something new has happened?